The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown

There is a compelling need for the injunction due to imminent and real risk of trespass and nuisance, substantial harm to University functions, and symbolic importance of the sites. The injunction is likely to succeed at trial, is necessary and proportionate, and does not unduly infringe Convention rights. Alternative remedies are inadequate as they address harm after occurrence rather than prevention.

Parties
Claimant: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge; Defendant: Persons Unknown; First Intervener: European Legal Support Centre; Second Intervener: National Council for Civil Liberties
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Judgment on Interim Injunction
Outcome
injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Trespass, Private Nuisance, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Discrimination, Protest Law
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Interim Injunctions Trespass Private Nuisance Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

European Legal Support Centre

First Intervener

National Council for Civil Liberties

Second Intervener

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Judgment on Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University is entitled to an interim injunction against Persons Unknown to restrain trespass and private nuisance on its land
  2. 2 Whether the injunction disproportionately infringes Convention rights under Articles 10, 11, and 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the injunction is necessary and proportionate given alternative remedies

Ratio Decidendi

There is a compelling need for the injunction due to imminent and real risk of trespass and nuisance, substantial harm to University functions, and symbolic importance of the sites. The injunction is likely to succeed at trial, is necessary and proportionate, and does not unduly infringe Convention rights. Alternative remedies are inadequate as they address harm after occurrence rather than prevention.

Court Disposition

injunction granted

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining Persons Unknown from entering, occupying, remaining upon, blocking access to, or erecting any structure on Senate House, Senate House Yard, Old Schools, and Greenwich House without University consent, for four months until 23:00 on 26 July 2025.
  • Order includes liberty to apply to discharge or vary, cross-undertaking in damages, and permission requirement for contempt applications.